Appeals Court – Unpublished

Where a judge ruled in the plaintiff homeowners’ favor on a G.L.c. 93A claim arising out of a kitchen and bathroom remodeling job, awarding nominal damages of $25 plus counsel fees and costs, the defendant contractor has presented no convincing basis for reversal.

Where the defendant appeals from his conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, the conviction must be affirmed, as the commonwealth's evidence was sufficient to establish that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Where (1) the prosecutor criticized the defense witness’s credibility in his closing argument, (2) the judge allowed the introduction of evidence concerning the defendant's default from a pretrial conference and (3) the judge gave a jury instruction on consciousness of guilt, the defendant’s convictions must be affirmed due to the absence of error.

Where a plaintiff filed a complaint claiming that the defendant conspired with the Lynn Housing Authority and Neighborhood Development (LHAND) to unlawfully evict him, the defendant was correctly awarded summary judgment based on a prior summary process action that was resolved by a settlement agreement with the plaintiff.

Where a judge dismissed a complaint that alleged that the defendants failed to properly remediate the plaintiffs' property as required by a settlement agreement reached in prior litigation, the dismissal order must be reversed as to two defendants and affirmed as to the other four.

Where a defendant was convicted of distribution of cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and a school zone violation, his motion to suppress evidence was properly denied on the grounds that police had probable cause to arrest and search him, but the judgment on the school zone violation must be dismissed due to insufficient evidence of accreditation.

The Appeals Court has affirmed, pursuant to Rule 1:28, judgments in the following cases. Although the decisions do not appear to address any substantive issues of law, the full text of each decision may be ordered using the appropriate “Lawyers ...

Where plaintiffs brought suit seeking an order requiring the defendant attorney to return $68,000 in fees allegedly paid to the attorney by the plaintiffs’ late father at the behest of the plaintiffs’ sister (the codefendant) who was the father’s guardian, the complaint was correctly dismissed based on the plaintiffs’ lack of standing to sue on behalf of their father’s estate.

Where a judge vacated a renewal of special permit issued by the planning board of North Andover for a wireless telecommunications facility in the steeple of a church, the plaintiffs who challenged the renewal lacked standing and consequently the judge’s decision must be reversed.